U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 26, 2007 04:28 PM UTC
56 Comments
For a man who has disappointed so many and has so little credability why in the world would anyone care what he has to say about anything?
He more than anyone should understand that politicians are people and people are imperfect.
ps – did he ever apologize for all of his mistakes.
…despite being a flawed human being, he is one of the smartest guys out there. He co-authored the Hart-Rudman report which warned the Bush misadministration that an attack was coming and what we should do to stop/minimize such things.
That doesn’t sound like “so little credibility”, does it? Yes, I’m disappointed that he self-destructed, but what that has to do with the validity of his comment has a correlation of zero.
That’s why.
just got all his information from Gunny Bob. Gunny was the one that predicted 9-11.
The report, published in September 1999, “warned that, in the course of the next quarter century, terrorist acts involving weapons of mass destruction were likely to increase. “Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers,” it said.
It does not say the exact day when he started, but I heard him on his first day of his show, POST 9/11.
All in all, Gunny toots his horn as much as any neo-con. The funny thing, is that the guy makes LOADS of predictions, of which most never come to be. The only ones that do, are those with lots of input from friends. I quit listening to him towards the end of 2002.
A multi-term senator. On the arms committe and WELL regarded. He (and another) were on the committee that in 1999/2000, predicted 9/11 and showed what was needed to protect ourselves (of which nearly all were adapted by the current 9/11 committee). IIRC, he was looking to be good on the election until ….. Right now, I would still vote for the man. And his advice about Hillary is almost certainly right on. IMNSOHO, the man, along with ex-gov lamm and Jimmy Carter, are some of the most underrated ex-politicians going.
when you ran for president, what percentage of our party wanted someone other than you?
Hart has always been a keen observer and commentator. What he says about people being unhappy with Clinton is absolutely correct. To me that means she needs to do more to let people know why she voted for the war and why she still believes it was the right thing to do. (That latter bit may be tricky with many Dems who rightly opposed the war from the get-go and saw through the Bush/Cheney lies about it.)
I will guess from her continued strong showing that it isn’t hurting her chances that much. It’s silly to say that “60-plus percent of the Democratic Party wants somebody else” at a time when the field is so crowded. So maybe Hart is trying to do a little damage?
should have visited Sen. Clinton’s Senate website, or he should have watched CSPAN2 when Sen. Clinton made her foor speech outlining her vote on the war resolution.
It is very clear what her expectations were at the time she cast her vote. She has absolutely no reason to apologize. Her vote, when viewed in context of the speech, was appropriate.
http://clinton.senat…
Maybe she dosen’t need to apologize, but she did make a mistake. She was duped by faulty, cherry-picked, distorted intelligence just like everyone else that voted for and supported the war.
Clearly Hillary wasn’t the only one who voted for it and it did have the majority of Americans support on it, so even if it didn’t work out those members who voted for it where doing their job representing the people’s will at that time. Hindsight is always 20-20 I’m sure Obama would rather not have done real estate deals with criminals but he did and life goes on.
“Everyone else was doing it” wasn’t a valid excuse when I was a kid and it certainly doesn’t show alot of judgment or courage on her part.
If she wants to move on start with an admission that she was wrong.
And if you want to talk about Obama’s real estate, than I’m sure we can talk about Hillary’s 10,000% return commodity deals.
This issue has been covered over and over again. It doesn’t help any one to keep recycling the same old arguement over and over again. I also wasn’t saying it was Ok because everyone else did it I was saying Hillary shouldn’t be singled out as the sole offender here. Your problem is with congress as a whole, and the majority of americans because they are the ones who approved it.
“Your problem is with congress as a whole, and the majority of americans because they are the ones who approved it.”
Not everyone. Mark Udall voted against it. Howard dean opposed it. Barack Obama opposed it. And many americans (30-40%) of americans opposed it. If more Democrats had shown some BALLS and opposed it more american would have opposed it. It was pure cowardice. If it wasn’t cowardice, it was colossal stupidity.
Hillary has “explained”(?), but she hasn’t apologized. Edwards admits it was a mistake and apologized. I accept it.
Hillary says she was mistaken to trust Bush. Is she a Liar or an Idiot? Maybe both. Who thought you could trust Bush? That is what really pisses me off, not the original vote. I can forgive the original vote, many people exercicesed poor judgment or political cowardice. What pisses me off is that she explains it by saying “I trusted Bush.”
were politicans represent the majority of their constituents. You admit the majority of people supported it so Hillary was in the right to represent her people and vote the way she did, doing what the people of her state wanted her to do. Why should she appologize for that? She also had no way of knowing the president would rush to war and not do what the legislation told him to do go to the UN. This is Bush’s failure not the congresses. If you think it’s congresses fault then why not blame the current congress and Obama for not doing more to end it.
A republic means we are supposed to have leaders.
“You admit the majority of people supported it so Hillary was in the right to represent her people and vote the way she did, doing what the people of her state wanted her to do.”
That is not leadership, that is following. If you are saying that Hillary is a good follower, I will accept that. I leader takes a position that the majority does not accept and convinces them to follow the leader. A good leader uses good judgment to pick critical issues to lead on. Iraq counts as one of those.
“She also had no way of knowing the president would rush to war and not do what the legislation told him to do go to the UN.”
No way of knowing? give her a little credit, you a calling her a moron. I don’t think she’s a moron, I think she’s a coward.
“If you think it’s congresses fault then why not blame the current congress and Obama for not doing more to end it. “
The time to end it was before it got started. Read Udall’s or Obama’s comments before the war to understand how reasonable politicians approached it. Hillary, Bush and others handed us a turd. There are no good answers now. I actually disagree with most of the positions, I think we need 50K troops in Iraq for the forseeable future so I don’t have a problem with any of the votes. thanks Hill.
as you say and convince people of what they don’t already believe give me an example of how Obama has done this? What makes Obama a good leader? He seems to have done nothing but follow since he’s been in the Senate.
He lead on the Iraq War before he was in the senate
Now what has hillary lead on in her seven years in the senate. She should have lead on a lot.
I don’t think that our politicians should sway us one way or the other I think they should reflect our views and impliment them, but since you said you thought leaders should move the public from one point of view to another name me one instance when Obama has demonstrated that he can do this? You can’t because even by your own def Obama is not a good leader.
Sudan, NK, Iran, etc. The polls show that his comment actually helped him (did not hurt HRC, but did not help her either).
The truth is, that he IS out of the main stream. While I am not wild about his running at this time( I would rather that he ran as ill. gov first), I have to admit that he makes lots of sense. He has given credence to HRC’s thoughts on insurance, which tells me that he is capable of giving credit where due. Overall, he appears to be heading the right direction. While I am a ron paul fan, I am slowly being won over by Obama (but not like Obama Girl 🙂 ).
I guess it’s not nice to inconvenience her like that, asking her to explain her vote in favor of the most horrific military misadventure in decades How dare we ?
Not to mention it was the most important vote she will ever make in her entire career.
since he’s been in the senate?
aye or nay
If Obama really is so against the war why has he voted for it once he became a senator? Where is his conviction? He can explain way his votes but is so critical of others when he never had to vote on it himself. Doesn’t sound very couragous to me.
I am no expert on Obama’s voting record, but I am guessing when you say he “voted for it” you are referring to Obama voting for various funding packages for the war in Iraq ONCE WE WERE ALREADY THERE, which is a distinction I think people can understand.
because the real issue is her character, not her vote. Political candidates are on the spot: They must endure an endless, relentless test of their character, their political skill, their ability to think on their feet, and their ability to meet often contradictory demands that are placed on them. Hillary is in a tough spot: She has to prove that she’s tough (since she’s a women), that she’s warm (since she has a reputation for being cold), that she’s moderate (since she had a reputation for being too far to the left), that she hasn’t abandoned her base (since she has moved far to the right from her original position). Fair or not, the fact is, she hasn’t passed this particular test to many people’s satisfaction. She voted for the war because she was building her national-security credentials, and she has never addressed the question of whether her instincts as a political animal overshadow her ideals as a public servant. It’s a tough test to be put to, but it’s a tough job for which she is applying.
and it is very obviously covering her ass to provide rationale for future shifts in position. The bottom line is that pretty much every major pol facing contested elections voted for war for that same reason.
Beyond that what I object to is that she (again, like most other conventional pols) is firmly aligned with the military-industrial-imperialist school of US foreign policy.
So no, she does not represent my views. But if she gets the Dem nomination I will vote for her because even conventional realist geopolitics is preferable to the neo-con authoritarianism espoused by all the Repub candidates.
Oh and BTW, I would strongly recommnend that she seek out Mr. Hart as a member of her foreign policy team–she would benefit from his expertise.
ass covering is another person’s well reasoned approach.
But the fact that she is now coming out stronger against the war at least gives encouragement that she can adjust in response to facts on the ground, and to input from constituents like me.
As for your comment down-thread about gender difference, not in my case. As I outlined, my differences are based on her policy stands.
for president is great. No mention of homeland/national security, just “strengthening the middle class”. Every other candidate discusses this, why not Hillary?
http://www.hillarycl…
http://www.hillarycl…
Those links discuss the War in Iraq and bettering America’s reputation. Thanks for making my point. Nothing on homeland security. Edwards’ idea may be to research blast-resistant buildings and Obama just talks about border intelligence, but at least they are talking about it on their websites. Hillary is just focused on “understanding our enemies”. Thanks for proving my point.
understanding our enemies does not put us in a better position regarding our own security, and that is fine if you feel that way….naive and potentially dangerous (witness the Reagan Administration’s support of Osama bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan 25 years ago) but well within your rights nevertheless.
JFK’s plan for peace. I think he was even a Democrat. Anyway he talks a lot about the need for “increased strength and intelligence” (not just “understanding”). I guess it doesn’t seem that hard to understand suicide bombers who kill their own people when they celebrate in the streets…they are not an unreasonable and psychotic enemy. If they were only killing US soldiers and civilians that is one thing, but their own people?! They can not be fought with showing off our sheer strength, but we can heed JFK’s suggestions when it comes to intelligence.
Does Hillary understand these terrorists will still be POed even once the U.S. military is out of Iraq? What will she do to ensure our security here on U.S. soil? She suggests starting schools in other countries and that is not a bad thing, but would it be better to advocate for the closing of religious schools in foreign countries that, without the parent’s knowledge, are recruiting their kids to be suicide bombers? Or do you advocate for the killing of Iraqis and Pakistanis and Palestinians by their own people as long as it is because they are angry with the U.S.? Hillary seems to think pulling out of Iraq will calm these terrorists and then they can sit down to a cup of tea and try to understand each other’s feelings.
Lastly, do not pull the “you don’t like her because she is a woman” card. She just happens to be the only candidate NOT discussing homeland security on her website. Speaking out against free speech (anti-semitism in Palestinian books) is all fine and dandy, but what about issues of domestic security?
just for Bush to use the war powers she voted for as leverage in more diplomatic efforts, then why did she subsequently vote AGAINST the Levin Amendment that would have sent us back to the UN to give diplomacy another try before going to war? Answer: She was as hawkish as anybody in congress, playing to her traumatized constituents and concerned with looking tougher than the boys in preparation for her run for commander-in-chief. Miles of video showing her at her most Bush supportive cheerleading hawkish are available for your viewing pleasure. You can also find plenty of footage showing her pushing her ridiculous anti-flag burning amendment back in her all pandering all the time period. Hart may be a jerk but his observations are not therefore all invalid.
but there are a number of us Democrats who (along with most Americans) do not believe that we need to seek permission from the United Nations for our foreign policy.
I, for one, do not think that we should give the UN veto power over our foreign policy.
was not about seeking permission but about pursuing diplomacy and/or at least building a meaningful consensus and strong coalition before jumping into war. Pretty good idea considering we had been successfully containing any threat Iraq presented for over a decade by then so there was no need to rush absent the clearly phony mushroom cloud crap which was not bought by the majority of Dems in congress.
If Hillary says she didn’t want to go to war, didn’t think Bush meant to go to war (although even the majority of the general public thought he did) but only wanted him to have the power to do so as a bargaining chip, the Levin amendment was the perfect vehicle for conveying that preference for diplomacy.
Its also interesting that in the early rush to war Bush claimed it was because of Saddam’s failure to comply with the UN ultimatum. So he was going to war to enforce something for the UN even though the UN wanted no part of it. I guess you either respect the UN enough to send our kids to die for them, whether they ask you to or not, or you don’t have to ask their permission, depending on which lets you do what you meant to do all along. Kind of like we can’t go after AlQaeda in Pakistan because they are a sovereign nation though that never stopped us from doing whatever we want in Iraq, another nation the President likes to call sovereign.
Point is Hillary was just as keen on going to war as Bush at the time and defended his policies for a VERY long time afterward. The idea that she was shocked….shocked that diplomacy wasn’t given a chance is nonsense.
Senator Hart raised several valid points yet no one has discussed the merit of those points. Distraction of the merit of the issues is what has led us to this point in our American history.
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
– Abe
how facile and downright dumb it is to attack the messenger by throwing 25-year-old tomatoes. I hope everyone who’s done this on this thread, and millions of others, has teenage children who don’t listen to any parental wisdom, ever, but rather say “You got picked up for shoplifting at 7-11 when you were 14, nya, nya, nya. Nothing you can say for the rest of your life means anything!”
Fairly prestigious publications print Hart’s writing, especially on foreign policy/relations. He’s invited to speak to large groups of smart people. Any of the tomato-throwers here say the same?
It’s that Hart of all people should understand that we should not rule someone out for making a mistake. Because anyone good will make mistakes.
He faced the same thing so I expect better of him on this point.
What do you think of a Obama-Clinton ticket?
As a disgruntled Republican I must say that in watching the You Tube debate this week it is refreshing to have a line-up that is talking “ideas”. I’m still mostly underwhelmed with the cast of characters my party has brought forth….I think I’ll vote for Ron Paul — in the event Tommy doesn’t succeed.
he brought up her authorization vote, what about this point? Do her negatives count?
“She’s one of the best-known women in the world,” Hart added. “She’s been in the White House for eight years. She’s a senator from one of the largest states. And 60-plus percent of the Democratic Party wants somebody else.”
75% plus Dems want someone other than Obama. The 60% plus figure is a silly comparison. Of more importance is who is Hart backing? Obama? If so, how much of his comment is worth anything other than politics?
Is that HRC will create a large get-out-the-vote against her. She is HATED by the far right. Many of them would rather not vote in the next election because THEY are disgusted with what has happened (even though it is true reagan clone approach with the exact same idiots). But if HRC gets the dem nod, those republicans, and I think a number of indies, would rather vote in Gulliani, Fred Thomsom, or even david duke than her.
Funny thing, is that I do think that she is innovative and has a number of good ideas. But like Gore, Carter and Poppa Bush, she lacks the ability to persuade ppl. That is something JFK, Reagan, and Bill Clinton were awesome at (sadly, reagan was as corrupt and ~intelligence as W.). If she learns how to deal with ppl, she MIGHT be a good or even a great leader. But for her to do that, she needs to find out from Gore what needs to change. He appears to have made a real flip on ppl handling skills (perhaps he does not refer to others’ heroes as corrupt or ~ intelligence as W 🙂 ).
Gary is right on with this. I personally get the impression that Hilary would eat her own young to become President.
of the current candidates who are running that are not ambitious? Mitt Romney? John Edwards? Barack Obama? John McCain? Rudy Guiliani? Which of them is not ambitious? I would say that every one of them are.
So is Hillary…
Perhaps you find this trait only unattractive when it is displayed by a woman…
LAME !
I haven’t heard him accuse Mitt Romney of being willing to eat his young when given his flip/flop/flip on damned near every social issue on the table, he is quite obviously willing to say anything to anyone to become President. Nope. He’s “ambitious”.
Hillary has steadfastly refused demands to apologize for her vote on the war even though it would obviously put her in a better position with the more liberal wing of our party. If she isn’t willing to apologize even though it could improve her standing, the argument that “she is willing to eat her young” simply doesn’t hold water.
I really do think it is an issue of gender. She is being held to a higher standard than are the other contenders.
was sexist.
…it is the people who hold her to different standards that are sexist.
Not the same.
but I guess not on this one. Claiming that people unfairly hold her to different standards because of your sex, is playing the sex card, which I think is sexist.
Perhaps you find this trait only unattractive when it is displayed by a woman…
This assumes those whom Coloradodem is referring to (men) have a problem with all women being ambitious, which in my opinion is making a sexist generalization.
my comment was not directed at all men. It was directed specifically at Black Helicopters. I haven’t a clue as to the gender of Black Helicopters. I have known several people, of both genders, who have a real problem with ambitious women.
I just think most people are OK, inclding myself, with ambitious women and that we’ve gotten beyond that. But if you say you have known several people who have a problem with it I take your word.